New Big Title Winners in 2018 (and Beyond)

[El Dude]

Make your predictions. Who will win their first big title in 2018 and, if you're more daring, 2019 and beyond?

For reference, here are first-time big title winners by year:

2017: 3 - Zverev, Dimitrov, Sock
2016: 0
2015: 0
2014: 2 - Wawrinka, Cilic
2013: 0
2012: 1 - Ferrer
2011: 0
2010: 2 - Soderling, Ljubicic
2009: 1 - del Potro
2008: 2 - Murray, Tsonga
2007: 1 - Djokovic
2006: 1 - Robredo
2005: 2 - Nadal, Berdych
2004: 2 - Gaudio, Massu
2003: 4 - Roddick, Coria, Mantilla, Henman
2002: 2 - Federer, Canas
2001: 6 - Hewitt, Portas, Ferrero, Pavel, Haas, Grosjean
2000: 3 - Safin, Pioline, Norman
1999: 2 - Phillipoussis, Johansson
1998: 3 - Moya, Costa, Rusedski
1997: 6 - Kuerten, Rafter, Rios, Corretja, Woodruff, Korda
1996: 5 - Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Carratero, Ferreira, Enqvist
1995: 0
1994: 1 - Medvedev
1993: 1 - Pernfors
1992: 2 - Ivanisevic, Rosset
1991: 6 - Stich, Courier, Bruguera, Novacek, Sanchez, Forget
1990: 3 - Sampras, Muster, Chesnokov

I'm hoping that's accurate. Anyhow, a couple things to consider.

One, with three new big title winners in 2017, it is the most in a year since 2003.

From 2011-17, most years (four out of seven) saw no new big title winners. Compare that to 1990-2010, in which there was only one year (1995) with no new big title winner. This clearly speaks to Big Four hegemony.

OK, now for predictions. Who knows who will actually be new big title winners, but here are my most likely candidates:

2018: Kyrgios, Thiem, Goffin, Raonic/Nishikori (I pair these guys because time may be passing them by, but they are over-due)
2019: Rublev, Khachanov, Medvedev
2020: Shapovalov, Tiafoe, Tsitsipas
2021: Aliassime, Moutet

Or something like that. Again, I'm not necessarily saying those players will win big titles in those years, just that those are the years I think they become serious candidates.

 

[mrzz]

2018 - Thiem, Goffin
2019 - Rublev (basically wishful thinking)

The rest I am far from sure. I actually put more stock in the older players stepping up than any other young player apart from Thiem. In Rublev's case, it is a long shot, but I want to believe he will develop in to a major winner.

 

[El Dude]

My predictions--not who I think could--are the same as yours, @mrzz, except I'm more optimistic on Kyrgios, so would add him to 2018.

Unfortunately I think the tour may be passing Raonic and Nishikori by. Neither are old (yet), but unlike a year or two ago there are now a group of younger players who are equal or better than them.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see one or both sneak in a Masters over the next few years. According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, Kei is the greatest player of the Open Era not to win a big title, and Milos tied with (and will soon surpass) Todd Martin for second best:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=BestPlayerThatNeverWonBigTitle

 

[mrzz]

My predictions--not who I think could--are the same as yours, @mrzz, except I'm more optimistic on Kyrgios, so would add him to 2018.

I admit I am being a bit stubborn and "Mr. Contrary" on Kyrgios. After all, I do think he is a good player and I think he can win big titles someday. But he is still too much centered around his serve. I checked out the highlights of his matches this week, even there it is ace after ace, with one or another winner here and there. If I recall correctly, on two occasions he went from down break point to winning the game with aces and service winners (it takes mental strength to do that over and over, and this is champion's quality that stand out in him IMO).

I also admit that just now I realize how quick his reflexes are, which is something wonderful for you net game. He does win a fair amount of points on the net, also given his size, but again his technique could be MUCH better.

Of course, he can follow his serve to Master's title, but I guess 2018 will be a bit harder than 2017 in that regard. Federer is still around and playing well, so we can expect him to be a huge factor in the first half, and a lot of good players will eventually be back in full form. Not much Cincinnatis in sight I guess....

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I admit I am being a bit stubborn and "Mr. Contrary" on Kyrgios. After all, I do think he is a good player and I think he can win big titles someday. But he is still too much centered around his serve. I checked out the highlights of his matches this week, even there it is ace after ace, with one or another winner here and there. If I recall correctly, on two occasions he went from down break point to winning the game with aces and service winners (it takes mental strength to do that over and over, and this is champion's quality that stand out in him IMO).

I also admit that just now I realize how quick his reflexes are, which is something wonderful for you net game. He does win a fair amount of points on the net, also given his size, but again his technique could be MUCH better.

..

Because of exactly these qualities, he will be a serious threat at Wimbledon this year.

 

[Moxie]

Good topic, Dude. That's for that useful OP. I'll stick with 2018 for now. I've got Kyrgios as my dark horse for the AO, and at least a solid chance at a MS1000. Thiem could do that, as well, particularly if Rafa lays off some on clay. As to Nishikori/Raonic, I do pair them, as well, for generation, and injury issues. Both have been in MS finals and Major finals. I think they're running out of time, but I don't pick them for this year. We'll always have Paris as a late-calendar opportunity for a new winner...maybe Goffin?

 

[El Dude]

@mrzz, look at it this way. Cilic won a Slam and on his own power - through playing great and beating top players. Before that, he was viewed as a bit of an underachiever but was not seen as talented as Kyrgios is now. I cannot remember a player like Kyrgios who is inconsistent but can beat anyone on a good night. Actually, I can: Stan Wawrinka. In a way Kyrgios is like Stan without the Slam titles, which makes me think that it is only a matter of time and putting everything together.

The scary thing for the tour is that if Kyrgios wins one, he'll be more likely to win more. In other words, it may be that he either wins none and enters the Hall of Disappointments with players like Nalbandian and Rios, or he wins 3-5 and becomes an-almost great like Kuerten or Courier. I see 1-2 as less likely.

I don't think he'll win 6+, both because the Big Four are still doing pretty well and because by the time they are faded, NextGen will be in their prime and more competitive than LostGen. But we shall see.

 

[El Dude]

Good topic, Dude. That's for that useful OP. I'll stick with 2018 for now. I've got Kyrgios as my dark horse for the AO, and at least a solid chance at a MS1000. Thiem could do that, as well, particularly if Rafa lays off some on clay. As to Nishikori/Raonic, I do pair them, as well, for generation, and injury issues. Both have been in MS finals and Major finals. I think they're running out of time, but I don't pick them for this year. We'll always have Paris as a late-calendar opportunity for a new winner...maybe Goffin?

That all sounds reasonable to me and along the lines of what I'm thinking as well.

I'll go on record and say that I think Kyrgios wins one of the AO, IW, or Miami. Thiem wins a clay Masters. Actually, Goffin could also be a candidate for one of Rafa's leftovers. As for Rafa, I think he only wins two of the four clay big titles ("only"). I don't think he'll be blessed with the same health he had last year.

I also agree that if Kei/Milos win one, it will either be Paris or next year. After that, I think their window closes, unless Milos does an Ivanisevic.

 

[Moxie]

That all sounds reasonable to me and along the lines of what I'm thinking as well.

I'll go on record and say that I think Kyrgios wins one of the AO, IW, or Miami. Thiem wins a clay Masters. Actually, Goffin could also be a candidate for one of Rafa's leftovers. As for Rafa, I think he only wins two of the four clay big titles ("only"). I don't think he'll be blessed with the same health he had last year.

I also agree that if Kei/Milos win one, it will either be Paris or next year. After that, I think their window closes, unless Milos does an Ivanisevic.

Nick could be a dark horse at Wimbledon, as well, esp. if Murray and Djokovic are less than full-strength by then. I expect/hope that Rafa won't feel the need to make the same push on clay this year, so he could leave particularly Madrid and Rome up for grabs. I certainly hope he'll be more protective of his knees than his #1 ranking. He'll surely play MC, but, if he doesn't feel compelled to win the 11th, that could also be an opportunity. Maybe for even Roger?? (No, probably he won't risk it.)

 

[El Dude]

Hey Moxie, what are your thoughts about Rafa just skipping grass season outright and resting up for the rest of the year, with the hopes of peaking again at the WTF? At this point if I was him I'd be happy with two Wimbledons and focus more on the other three Slams and WTF.

 

[Moxie]

Hey Moxie, what are your thoughts about Rafa just skipping grass season outright and resting up for the rest of the year, with the hopes of peaking again at the WTF? At this point if I was him I'd be happy with two Wimbledons and focus more on the other three Slams and WTF.

It's going to depend on how much he plays before grass, and how his knees are feeling. Wise or not, I honestly don't see him giving up on Wimbledon, outright. But, yeah, should he have a good front half of the season (including at least one Major,) he might decide to give it a rest until the US Open series.

 

[mrzz]

@mrzz. In a way Kyrgios is like Stan without the Slam titles, which makes me think that it is only a matter of time and putting everything together.

Well, since we are here, that is where we disagree. You can't simply forget all the things Wawrinka does consistently better than Kyrgios. That backhand is a monster, why it doesn't count? Is it not "talent" that is needed to fire the winners that Wawrinka fires, off-balance and 3 meters away from the baseline? Those are things that Kyrgios does not have in his arsenal -- it is not a question of putting everything together. When Wawrinka puts together his serve, his running forehand and keeps his error count low, his back hand and his fire power complete the package, and then you can say that "everything was put together". Kyrgios case... there are not that many dimensions to his game just yet. Can he develop them? I guess he can, but he has work to do... (I could follow a similar line of reasoning regarding Cilic).

 

[El Dude]

What I hear you saying, @mrzz, is that Wawrinka is a more complete player. But that doesn't mean he's more effective (compared to how Kyrgios might become). Just as most will agree that Roger is more complete than Rafa, but not necessarily more effective.

Or if you're a Game of Thrones fan, Oberyn was a more skilled warrior to the Mountain, but we all know how that ended.

Sometimes you can be really, really good at just a few things and beat someone who is really good at a lot of things.

 

[mrzz]

But that doesn't mean he's more effective (compared to how Kyrgios might become)

I surely agree with that. But please note what a huge U-turn in narrative this phrase carries.

 

[britbox]

Kyrgios is the outstanding candidate to grab a Masters this year given the current state of the field. Nishikori not won one yet? He'd be another one to watch IMO if he can get and stay fit.

 

[herios]

For me, Goffin is a candidate I am watching closely.

 

[herios]

What I hear you saying, @mrzz, is that Wawrinka is a more complete player. But that doesn't mean he's more effective (compared to how Kyrgios might become). Just as most will agree that Roger is more complete than Rafa, but not necessarily more effective.

Or if you're a Game of Thrones fan, Oberyn was a more skilled warrior to the Mountain, but we all know how that ended.

Sometimes you can be really, really good at just a few things and beat someone who is really good at a lot of things.

Also I have to add that the player who can fizzle in no time is Kyrgios.
That is why I am a no believer until he proves me wrong.

 

[Moxie]

Kyrgios is the outstanding candidate to grab a Masters this year given the current state of the field. Nishikori not won one yet? He'd be another one to watch IMO if he can get and stay fit.

Nishikori was beating Rafa in the final of Madrid a few years ago, but then his back went and Rafa took the cup.

 

[El Dude]

I surely agree with that. But please note what a huge U-turn in narrative this phrase carries.

Not sure what you mean. I see Kyrgios and Wawrinka as similar in that both are able to reach a very high, elite level, but not with the consistency of Roger, Rafa, or Novak. I also agree with you that Stan can do more things than Kyrgios, is more "complete," but completeness doesn't automatically equate with effectiveness (otherwise Dimitrov, who is a pretty complete player, would have more big titles).

 

[mrzz]

Not sure what you mean. I see Kyrgios and Wawrinka as similar in that both are able to reach a very high, elite level, but not with the consistency of Roger, Rafa, or Novak. I also agree with you that Stan can do more things than Kyrgios, is more "complete," but completeness doesn't automatically equate with effectiveness (otherwise Dimitrov, who is a pretty complete player, would have more big titles).

Well, surely Wawrinka can reach elite level -- we have seen that a few times. Kyrgios can reach a high level, sure, as we are talking about a top 20 player, but to my eyes no way that is "elite" level yet. Wawrinka (the Stanimal version) locked horns with the big 3 playing their best, at big matches, and either won or made it utterly competitive (with one exception being last year's RG final). Nobody else -- not even Murray -- has been able to do that. So, no, I do not think this is a fair comparison.

But as I said, I agree about the effectiveness, and that it is not equal to completeness. In fact, far from it. My point was always that Kyrgios is extremely effective for his skills (though I am now borrowing the term "effective" from you, which suits perfectly my view). But those skills are limited (for a top 20). What I meant by "u-turn" is that the usual narrative is that he wins out of sheer talent. We can dwell how much we want about what we mean by "talent", and even by "effectiveness", but surely we agree they are quite different things.

By the way, before anyone else brings Nadal into the discussion (as you wrote before that he is effective, and I agreed with), he is obviously effective and talented (and quite complete too). As you like to remember, it doesn't have to be just one thing or the other. In Kyrgios case, however, I believe it still is.